-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bacon eaters! Do you see?
- Thread starter steaver
- Start date
- Status
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
It seems you keep missing the point of Lev 11 - not sure how that keeps happening. The point in Lev 11 is not "rats are diseased" - rather the point is that we are not supposed to eat rats, cats, dogs or bats (etc) and also not to eat diseased meat.
SINCE we already are told not to eat the rats, cats, dogs or bats (diseased or not) then the prohibition against eating diseased meats is specific to those animals like sheep, goats, cows, deer etc that we CAN eat. Thus the text specifically speaks to those animals which you MAY eat - that are then found to be diseased - they die of themselves - and are therefore NOT to be eaten.
Your statement above makes it "appear" that you have read "into Lev 11" the idea that all mice are "diseased" or that all cats are "diseased".
It is a "both AND" situation of being told not to eat the cats AND also not to eat any sheep that is diseased (that dies of itself).
Hope that helps.:thumbsup:
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
When you say "kosher killed" do you mean "not strangled"??
Have you been to a slaughter house? The animals are not strangled. Rather they are hung upside down and drained.
BTW - even Acts 15 forbids the eating of animals that have been strangled.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Whew! I thought you would "never" ask...
39 "Also [b]if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening.[/b] (NASB)
39And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die; he that toucheth the carcase thereof shall be unclean until the even. (KJV)
Thus the explicit reference to diseased animals is for the ones that you may eat - and it states that they are not to be eaten if they are diseased - if they die of themselves.
There is no need to talk about "diseased cats" since you are not supposed to eat healthy cats nor healthy rats.
(Possibly dissappointing to some - but still that is the text of scripture).
in Christ,
Bob
It is not a "both and" situation. You are reading into the Word of God that which is not there. Quote a verse where it says "both and."
Unclean does not mean "diseased." God did not create "diseased" animals as you unjustly accuse our Creator. He created all things and then looked upon it all and declared it all "very good." None of it was "diseased." The term "unclean" does not in any way refer to diseased.
Neither can you justify this passage:
1 Timothy 4:1-4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For a religious order or organization to declare that any certain kind of food should be rejected or declared unclean, it is "a doctrine of demons" (devils). This SDA doctrine is a doctrine of the devil, a demonic doctrine according to this passage. That is the first thing to take into consideration.
Secondly God has expressly declared that all food is clean or good, and nothing is to be refused, not even pork, cat, dog, etc. There is no law against eating these animals--only cultural preference. In some countries they are either a delicacy or a part of the main course--depending on where you live. All food is good and nothing to be refused. For any religion to declare that any food is unclean; that is a demonic doctrine.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Indeed - I keep trying to stress that point with you and you keep missing it.
What is going on there??
In your previous quote - you included vs 5 and I pointed out that vs 5 destroys your entire argument ...so now you decide to drop vs 5?
What is up with that?
Let me help you remember how it looked when you first posted this -- where you included vs 5.
Originally Posted by DHK
1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)
That is where I reminded you that the Word of God today has 66 books (and at the time Paul was writing it had 39 books) of which Lev 11 just so happens to be in one of them.
Thus - all things that are approved in scripture ARE clean - and to be enjoyed. But the old "I don't care what scripture says" argument does not go very far with Paul as you might imagine.
Turns - out Lev 11 was authored by God - not demons.
(That is a detail a lot of people are going to notice).
Think about it.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
So Leviticus 11 Trumps the NT.
Do you play games like this all the time?
What tribe do you belong to Bob? Levi? Benjamin? Simeon? Which one?
Leviticus 11 was written to the Jews, the nation of Israel.
But Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes to Timothy, and to all believers in Christ.
Trotter
<img src =/6412.jpg>
If I were bound under the Law I would not eat pork. Christ came to fulfill the Law or so my bible says. He did so because man cannot keep the Law and cannot measure up to the holiness of God. If I decide that I would rather be under the Law than under that which Christ has paid the price for already I would then have to keep all of the Law and not just the dietary parts, otherwise I am guilty of breaking all the Law. God does not grade on a curve.
I have yet to see how the SDA justifies keeping only part of the Law. That's no trick statement, either. Why only keep part of the Law? Paul chastened the Galatians for this very thing, adding the Law to grace. So why does the SDA add the dietary requirements? outside of what their "prophet" has said... I want to see actual scriptural reasons.
I have read some SDA literature (I guess it is SDA... "Amazing Facts" looked to me to be about as militant as possible along SDA lines). A fellow I used to work with was SDA and we had many discussions about this topic but he was not able to give me any solid reasons other than to give me some of the "Amazing Facts" stuff. Needless to say I found the literature more than a bit off.
I have yet to see how the SDA justifies keeping only part of the Law. That's no trick statement, either. Why only keep part of the Law? Paul chastened the Galatians for this very thing, adding the Law to grace. So why does the SDA add the dietary requirements? outside of what their "prophet" has said... I want to see actual scriptural reasons.
I have read some SDA literature (I guess it is SDA... "Amazing Facts" looked to me to be about as militant as possible along SDA lines). A fellow I used to work with was SDA and we had many discussions about this topic but he was not able to give me any solid reasons other than to give me some of the "Amazing Facts" stuff. Needless to say I found the literature more than a bit off.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This thread is causing me to crave a BLT.
Let me guess - a bat - lemur - toad sandwich??:laugh:
(Or maybe you meant a beef-lamb-tomato sandwich)
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DHK
1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)
Sanctified - food that is "set apart" by the Word of God (scripture) as it existed at the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy.
Here again we see Paul affirm "sola scriptura" testing. (Hint this is not the time to dump sola scriptura testing)
Bob said:
So hopefully you do not resort to calling the teaching of scripture "doctrines of demons" in some kind of "last resort" for your traditions about the pleasure in eating cats and rats.
DHK said:
Contradiction to the Word of God in Lev 11 - noted.
By contrast the sola scriptura model notices that inconvenient Detail that Paul himself argues for the context of his 1Tim 4 statement being IN HARMONY with what is found "in scripture" -- in the scripture they were actually reading as saints.
Thus in Acts 17:11 they "studied the SCRIPTURES daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul - WERE SO".
DHK said:
I belong to the tribe that accepts the statement of Paul in 2Tim 3:16-17 "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God" AND IS TO BE USED "for DOCTRINE" (KJV21)
It is my position that when you argue FOR "sola scriptura" methods you cannot simply through them out the window when they no longer serve your rat-cat-bat sandwich ideas.
(Or should I have said bat-lemur-toad sandwich
)in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
So you admit that your view, your interpretation of this passage:
1 Timothy 4:1-5 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
is a contradiction of Leviticus 11.
Therefore by your own admission (since the Bible doesn't contradict itself), your view is wrong. There is no contradiction. We don't live under the law. However you do believe a demonic doctrine, a doctrine of demons. No need to throw back Leviticus 11. It was specifically written to the nation of Israel and never, at any time, was applicable to Christians. That is not what Acts 15 teaches, nor any other passage teaches.
I also see, that though I have posted twice now:
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
you are afraid to give an answer to it.
It makes you a hypocrite as I have pointed out. Why haven't you answered those two previous posts Bob?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by DHK
1 Timothy 4:3-5 forbidding marriage and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving.
5 For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. (WEB)
Sanctified - food that is "set apart" by the Word of God (scripture) as it existed at the time Paul wrote this letter to Timothy. Thus no rats,cats,dogs, bats nor even diseased animal flesh - in the case of the clean animals that were found to die of themselves.
Here again we see Paul affirm "sola scriptura" testing. (Hint this is not the time to dump sola scriptura testing)
By direct contrast to Lev 11 (to that which is sanctified by the Word of God) we have --
That direct contradition to God's Word in your post above is "noted".
The absence of any reference at all to "cat or dog" in 1Tim 4 is "noted".
The presence of the restriction on foods to be eaten being only those "set apart" sanctified "by the Word of God" in 1Tim 4 -- is also noted, by direct contrast to your "cat, dog" wild statement above.
Far from it.
That passage says nothing at all about "eating cats". But you are more then happy to argue that those who fail to see cats as good food and choose instead to only eat that which is sanctified by the Word of God -- are preaching dotrines of demons.
What a stretch!!
What a contradiction on your part to the word of God.
Acts 17:11 shows continued authorative TESTING of NT doctrine by the "scriptures" - we some times call that "sola scriptura". Perhaps you have heard of it.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
On the contrary - you appear to make the wild argument that is of the form "surely you do not want to obey this part of God's Word - so if you don't want to obey this part of scripture - why not also violate the Lev 11 text of scripture as well?" -- AS IF that is some kind of "exegesis" of something.
How sad.
Also how odd that you think that not wearing a garment mixed with wool and linen is such a trial, especially given the fact that when preserved in whole cloth - the one abosrbs moisture while the other repels.
The limits you place on God's word appear to be aligned with what you consider convenience and custom.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In this case - we limit "kosher" in "killed" to the text of scripture itself -- hence my reference to Acts 15 that upholds the Levitcal law against strangling your food.
in Christ,
Bob
It is sad Bob. It is sad that you choose a "pick and choose" method of Bible study instead of rightly dividing the word of truth.
Let's see (you say). I think I will obey this part of the Bible, but discard this part. I don't like Deut.22; but I like Lev.11. Lets trash this part but keep this part. Does your Bible have holes in it? Have you ripped chunks out of it by now? You have an odd way of doing Bible Study and choosing which passages to obey and which ones to ignore. As you say, "that is some kind of exegesis."
You miss the entire point of the passage. The Israelites were not interested in the usefulness of practicality of which cloth to use. God was teaching them a lesson which they had to obey. You clearly don't see the lesson and thus refuse to obey it.
The lesson was purity and separation.
They could only wear one type of cloth: either all linen, or all wool. It had to be one or the other. It had to be all one kind of cloth. They could not mix their clothing. It was a symbol of purity. It was also a symbol of separation. Any mixture of another type of clothing would be a sign of sin, and thus a sign of impurity. The cloth would no longer be pure. And they would no longer be separated unto the Lord, for the Lord does not tolerate sin.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisee. Leaven is a type of sin, or of false doctrine. The same lesson was taught here. During the Passover there was to be no leaven in their bread for leaven was a type of sin. Their bread had to be pure. Any leaven would contaminate it--figuratively contaminate it with sin.
And so it was with the clothing. Any other type of clothing would contaminate it with sin.
Your clothing is contaminated with the sin of polyester. It is probably cotton mixed with polyester. Polyester is that sin that contaminates the cloth you wear. You do not wear 100% of any cloth thus breaking God's law. If you do not continue in this law then the dietary laws are useless to you.
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
You must continue in ALL things that are written in the law, and continue in them from life unto death, not omitting a single one. If you disobey one law one time in your life you are cursed and there is no remedy for you. That is the teaching here for those that have put themselves under the law.
If you are going to keep the dietary law, you must keep the clothing law, and all the other OT laws. You must not omit a single law. If you do you are cursed under the law.
I am not the one placing limits on God's Word. You have placed yourself under God's law and God's curse. To bring yourself out from under that curse you must bring yourself out from under the law, which means out from under the dietary laws as well.
Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
--If you are truly saved you will realize that the law is no longer applicable. Christ has redeemed us from the law and its curse. He hung on the cross abolishing the law.
The purpose of the law:
Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
--It was simply to teach us that we are sinners. It is Christ that saves, and Him alone. It is not the law, nor the keeping of the law.
Ephesians 2:14-15 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
--Once and for all the law has been abolished.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Paul said in 1Cor 7:19 "but what matters is keeping the commandments of God".
In Romans 7 Paul affirms the fact that he fully agrees with God's Law and chooses to obey it.
In Romans 3:31 Paul says "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God".
To which we get this note of fiction
There is not one "Christ abolished the Law" text in all of scripture - no not even one.
Abolished "divsion" and "emnity" yes - but there is no "abolished law" rather what we see in places like 1Cor 7:19 and Rev 12 and 14 is that the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God"
In John 14:15 - Christ states it plainly "if you love Me KEEP My commandments" (Some people we will recall that Christ is in fact God at this point).
John says that those who claim to know Christ and yet do not keep His Commandments are not telling the truth. John then tells us in Rev 12 that the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God".
Thus For John and those who choose to accept what he wrote - Christ IS God.
I am pleased to see you find a portion of truth in your argument. The Law is not "a savior" it does not "Save from sin". And all mankind are sinners. thus we cannot "Love God with all our heart" Deut 6:5 so as to be without need of a Savior. Neither can we "Love our neighbor as ourselves" Lev 19:18 so as to have no need of a Savior. Neither can we abey the Acts 15 command to Gentiles commanding that they follow the Levitical law agains eating animals that have been strangled so perfectly that we need no savior.
Circling back to the fact that we are all in need of a Savior any time you find some part of God's Word that you want to ignore - does nothing to establish your "saints must be in nonstop rebellion" style argument such that we should ignore these statements in God's Word telling us not to eat rats, or telling us to Love God and Love our Neighbor - telling us not to eat animals that have been strangled ... etc.
Hint - polyester is not the "linen" mentioned in scripture. Your "saints must rise up and rebell against the Word of God" style of argument failed just then.
in Christ,
Bob
In Romans 7 Paul affirms the fact that he fully agrees with God's Law and chooses to obey it.
In Romans 3:31 Paul says "do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God".
To which we get this note of fiction
There is not one "Christ abolished the Law" text in all of scripture - no not even one.
Abolished "divsion" and "emnity" yes - but there is no "abolished law" rather what we see in places like 1Cor 7:19 and Rev 12 and 14 is that the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God"
In John 14:15 - Christ states it plainly "if you love Me KEEP My commandments" (Some people we will recall that Christ is in fact God at this point).
John says that those who claim to know Christ and yet do not keep His Commandments are not telling the truth. John then tells us in Rev 12 that the saints are those who "Keep the Commandments of God".
Thus For John and those who choose to accept what he wrote - Christ IS God.
I am pleased to see you find a portion of truth in your argument. The Law is not "a savior" it does not "Save from sin". And all mankind are sinners. thus we cannot "Love God with all our heart" Deut 6:5 so as to be without need of a Savior. Neither can we "Love our neighbor as ourselves" Lev 19:18 so as to have no need of a Savior. Neither can we abey the Acts 15 command to Gentiles commanding that they follow the Levitical law agains eating animals that have been strangled so perfectly that we need no savior.
Circling back to the fact that we are all in need of a Savior any time you find some part of God's Word that you want to ignore - does nothing to establish your "saints must be in nonstop rebellion" style argument such that we should ignore these statements in God's Word telling us not to eat rats, or telling us to Love God and Love our Neighbor - telling us not to eat animals that have been strangled ... etc.
Hint - polyester is not the "linen" mentioned in scripture. Your "saints must rise up and rebell against the Word of God" style of argument failed just then.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple of questions for you Bob;
How long have you been a Christian?
Have you known a commandment of God since and chose to break it?
How long now since your last known sin of choice, knowing the commandment prior to the sin?
:jesus:
- Status